Mogoaşe Cristina, David Daniel, Koster Ernst H W
Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
J Clin Psychol. 2014 Dec;70(12):1133-57. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22081. Epub 2014 Mar 20.
Attentional bias modification (ABM) treatment is a promising intervention tool for a variety of clinical conditions.
This study provides an updated review of the clinical effect of ABM by employing standard meta-analytic procedures to (a) estimate the average effect size of ABM in reducing both attention bias (AB) and symptoms, (b) estimate the average effect size for different conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression, and substance abuse), (c) test possible variables that may moderate the effect sizes, and (d) investigate the relationship between preexistent AB and the reduction in AB and symptoms.
We included 43 controlled trials with a total of 2,268 participants providing 47 group comparisons (i.e., training vs. control condition). Inclusion criteria were as follows: AB was specifically targeted to reduce symptomatology and emotional vulnerability; participants were randomized to the experimental conditions; a control condition (defined as sham training) existed; symptoms were assessed at least postintervention; sufficient data were provided to allow effect size estimation.
We obtained a small overall effect size on symptoms postintervention, g = 0.160, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.055, 0.265], driven by anxiety studies, g = 0.260, 95% CI = [0.132, 0.388], and studies conducted in healthy participants, g = 0.211, 95% CI = [0.046, 0.375]; no significant effect sizes were found postintervention for other symptom categories.
The therapeutic benefit of ABM is rather small for anxiety, while the amount of data for other symptom categories is limited. We argue that more efficient, psychometrically sound procedures are needed for assessing and modifying AB.
注意偏向矫正(ABM)治疗是一种对多种临床病症都很有前景的干预工具。
本研究通过采用标准的荟萃分析程序,对ABM的临床效果进行了更新综述,以(a)估计ABM在减少注意偏向(AB)和症状方面的平均效应量,(b)估计不同病症(如焦虑、抑郁和药物滥用)的平均效应量,(c)测试可能调节效应量的变量,以及(d)研究预先存在的AB与AB和症状减少之间的关系。
我们纳入了43项对照试验,共有2268名参与者,提供了47组比较(即训练组与对照组)。纳入标准如下:专门针对减少症状和情绪易损性来矫正AB;参与者被随机分配到实验条件;存在对照组(定义为假训练);至少在干预后评估症状;提供了足够的数据以进行效应量估计。
干预后,我们在症状方面获得了较小的总体效应量,g = 0.160,95%置信区间(CI)= [0.055, 0.265],这是由焦虑研究推动的,g = 0.260,95% CI = [0.132, 0.388],以及在健康参与者中进行的研究,g = 0.211,95% CI = [0.046, 0.375];干预后在其他症状类别中未发现显著的效应量。
ABM对焦虑的治疗益处相当小,而其他症状类别的数据量有限。我们认为需要更有效、心理测量学上合理的程序来评估和矫正AB。